No community start suggestion yet.
When does a husband's claim that a get is forged create only a sofeik megureshes versus a vadai ein megureshes (child mamzer)? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s halachos 1-8 of Hilchos Geirushin perek 1, focusing on the tension between kiyum b'chosmo as a derabanan versus the Rambam's ruling of vadai mamzer, and grapples with the structure and scope of halacha (הלכה) 7's puzzling placement.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 3a and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s Hilchos Geirushin, focusing on the laws of kiyum b'chosmo (validating a get through signature verification) and the status of a woman when her husband claims the get is forged (mezuyaf). The Rambam in Hilchos Geirushin 1:2 rules that when a shliach brings a get from place to place within Eretz Yisrael, even if he did not witness the writing and signing, the woman is megureshes and permitted to remarry. However, if the husband comes and claims "lo girashti me'olam" (I never divorced her) and the get cannot be verified through kiyum b'chosmo, the Rambam rules "teitzei v'havlad mamzer she'areinu megureshes" — she must leave both men and the child is a mamzer because she is definitively not divorced. The shiur notes this is remarkable: the Rambam doesn't simply say "ein megureshes" but rules vadai mamzer, treating this as a definitive prohibition, not merely a safek.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Gittin 3a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
